4 ms·

“I have hopes for a utopian future where AI does everything better than humans, which allows us to spend our time poorly doing the things we are most excited ab

“I have hopes for a utopian future where AI does everything better than humans, which allows us to spend our time poorly doing the things we are most excited about.” This thought is quite common and widespread, I’ve heard it multiple times, and it always baffles me. The very idea that human beings would stop exploiting each other and just live a peaceful, content life with their AI helpers is so hopelessly distant from the way I understand the world. I wish I was wrong, but human beings don’t exploit each other because we need to, as if it was an unfortunate thing; we exploit each other because we want and because we can. Even if AI robots solved most of our problems, we will never simply accept that and let others live in peace. Some human beings will always look for opportunities to rise above others, as long as they somehow can. I’d go even further as to say that, in case a future like that became actually feasible and predictable, lots of people currently in positions of power would fight very hard to keep that from happening.

fulafel 1y ago
For a remedy to this flavour of pessimism I'd suggest you read Bregman's Humankind[1]. tldr; the current level of exploiting each other doesn't come naturally for people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humankind:_A_Hopeful_History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humankind:_A_Hopeful_History
- jjani 1y ago
  > the current level of exploiting each other doesn't come naturally for people. Agreed, it doesn't. Nothing about that fact seems reason for optimism, however. It's a gigantic leap to go from "the current level of exploiting each other doesn't come naturally for people" to "that level is going to decrease, or stop rising, any time soon".
  - low_tech_love 1y ago
    It doesn’t as long as we keep each other at check. I do believe it’s natural for humans to take advantage of opportunities that arise in your environment; if a human being sees that they can do better, at the expense of others, then it seems to me that is a very natural response for an individual that has a single, disconnected brain (as opposed to some kind of hive mind). But don’t mistake “natural” with “good”. Actually that is much more natural (in a wild sense) than having a complex society full of moral and philosophical constraints. I myself believe very strongly in ethics and try to be ethical as much as I can, but that doesn’t mean ethical behaviour comes “naturally”. If you can’t accept that not everyone will be ethical, and some will act “savagely”, then you’re being naive and opening yourself to, well, opportunities of exploitation.
- mock-possum 1y ago
  Doesn’t it, though? Where else could it come from, but our own nature? Do we not live in an environment of our own creation, more and more each generation? Edit - you know what, after a bit of reading, I do get the point being made. Thanks for the book reference, I’m going to place a hold at my library if they have it.
- low_tech_love 1y ago
  I don’t agree this is pessimism, actually I live a pretty content and optimistic life. However my comfort and optimism comes from being skeptical in a healthy way and knowing that human beings look out for themselves and that I need to look out for myself and my family, keeping others at check in a healthy, respectful way. I don’t buy into this idea that human beings are supposed to be “larger than life” in order to live happy and in balance with each other.
bilbo0s 1y ago
I think you may be misapprehending what some people think may be happening here. The issue is not people exploiting one another to rise above each other. The issue is a few people exploiting AI's they own to keep themselves above everyone en masse. They don't lose the need to rise above you, rather staying above you is the entire point of the AIs they're creating. If you want to compete in the economy in the future, you will have no choice but to also exploit their AIs to try to rise above others. Thereby helping the owning class rise further above you. Why not make your own? Because you don't happen to have an army of AI researchers to create it for you. Why not use open source models? Again, you can, but you're betting those models will be better than commercial models. And right now the capability gap there is widening. People in power wouldn't fight AIs to keep themselves in power. Rather you, yourself, using the AIs they own to make a living, would more deeply entrench their already extant power.
- low_tech_love 1y ago
  You’re not wrong, but I was addressing a specific point the author made in a specific sentence. The idea that people will get some sort of universal salary and be left alone to just do some woodworking in their backyard (in a non-profitable way I mean) is to me absurd. It doesn’t matter if AI solves all the problems of humankind; if someone sees you getting a salary without “earning” it (whatever the hell that means), then you will be bothered, no question about it.
tempodox 1y ago
I always answer that with this question: When was the last time that productivity gains translated directly into a quality of life increase for the workers? Never, of course, you just have to do more work in less time and the win materializes in lower costs and higher profits for the capital owners. Workers may get some crumbs that fell from the table as an unintended side effect.
- lm28469 1y ago
  Not never, but never in recent history. I'd say the cut off point was when we moved most of our factories to cheaper countries and made our economies reliant on services instead of goods. I'm sure a worker in the peak of the industrial revolution had a much worse time than I do now. But I'm also equally sure my parents and grandparents had it much easier in term of purchasing power, work/life balance, job stability, being able to afford a home on a single income, being able to afford kids, being able to retire at a somewhat reasonable time, &c. Basically everything after the digital revolution disproportionately benefited a very small percentage of people, while previous advances benefitted the masses (agriculture, train/cars, factory automation, &c.). We got a lot of new shiny bells and whistle to regularly pump up the dopamine but we lost a lot of basics
  - swed420 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism > According to skeptics of the "late capitalism" idea, so far there just has not been any real evidence of: > (1) long-term economic stagnation or prolonged negative economic growth in the advanced capitalist countries; > (2) pervasive social decay and persistent cultural degeneration that just keeps getting worse and worse, and > (3) pervasive and persistent rejection of capitalism and business culture by the majority of the population (all three of the skeptic points seem ripe to be re-analyzed) > For many Western Marxist scholars since that time, the historical epoch of late capitalism starts with the outbreak (or the end[9]) of World War II (1939–1945), and includes the post–World War II economic expansion, the world recession of the 1970s and early 1980s, the era of neoliberalism and globalization, the 2008 financial crisis and the aftermath in a multipolar world society. Particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, many economic and political analyses of late capitalism were published. Late Capitalism (1973) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/931838.Late_Capitalism https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/931838.Late_Capitalism

fulafel 1y ago

For a remedy to this flavour of pessimism I'd suggest you read Bregman's Humankind[1]. tldr; the current level of exploiting each other doesn't come naturally for people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humankind:_A_Hopeful_History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humankind:_A_Hopeful_History

jjani 1y ago
> the current level of exploiting each other doesn't come naturally for people. Agreed, it doesn't. Nothing about that fact seems reason for optimism, however. It's a gigantic leap to go from "the current level of exploiting each other doesn't come naturally for people" to "that level is going to decrease, or stop rising, any time soon".
- low_tech_love 1y ago
  It doesn’t as long as we keep each other at check. I do believe it’s natural for humans to take advantage of opportunities that arise in your environment; if a human being sees that they can do better, at the expense of others, then it seems to me that is a very natural response for an individual that has a single, disconnected brain (as opposed to some kind of hive mind). But don’t mistake “natural” with “good”. Actually that is much more natural (in a wild sense) than having a complex society full of moral and philosophical constraints. I myself believe very strongly in ethics and try to be ethical as much as I can, but that doesn’t mean ethical behaviour comes “naturally”. If you can’t accept that not everyone will be ethical, and some will act “savagely”, then you’re being naive and opening yourself to, well, opportunities of exploitation.
mock-possum 1y ago
Doesn’t it, though? Where else could it come from, but our own nature? Do we not live in an environment of our own creation, more and more each generation? Edit - you know what, after a bit of reading, I do get the point being made. Thanks for the book reference, I’m going to place a hold at my library if they have it.
low_tech_love 1y ago
I don’t agree this is pessimism, actually I live a pretty content and optimistic life. However my comfort and optimism comes from being skeptical in a healthy way and knowing that human beings look out for themselves and that I need to look out for myself and my family, keeping others at check in a healthy, respectful way. I don’t buy into this idea that human beings are supposed to be “larger than life” in order to live happy and in balance with each other.

bilbo0s 1y ago

I think you may be misapprehending what some people think may be happening here. The issue is not people exploiting one another to rise above each other. The issue is a few people exploiting AI's they own to keep themselves above everyone en masse. They don't lose the need to rise above you, rather staying above you is the entire point of the AIs they're creating. If you want to compete in the economy in the future, you will have no choice but to also exploit their AIs to try to rise above others. Thereby helping the owning class rise further above you. Why not make your own? Because you don't happen to have an army of AI researchers to create it for you. Why not use open source models? Again, you can, but you're betting those models will be better than commercial models. And right now the capability gap there is widening. People in power wouldn't fight AIs to keep themselves in power. Rather you, yourself, using the AIs they own to make a living, would more deeply entrench their already extant power.

low_tech_love 1y ago
You’re not wrong, but I was addressing a specific point the author made in a specific sentence. The idea that people will get some sort of universal salary and be left alone to just do some woodworking in their backyard (in a non-profitable way I mean) is to me absurd. It doesn’t matter if AI solves all the problems of humankind; if someone sees you getting a salary without “earning” it (whatever the hell that means), then you will be bothered, no question about it.

tempodox 1y ago

I always answer that with this question: When was the last time that productivity gains translated directly into a quality of life increase for the workers? Never, of course, you just have to do more work in less time and the win materializes in lower costs and higher profits for the capital owners. Workers may get some crumbs that fell from the table as an unintended side effect.

lm28469 1y ago
Not never, but never in recent history. I'd say the cut off point was when we moved most of our factories to cheaper countries and made our economies reliant on services instead of goods. I'm sure a worker in the peak of the industrial revolution had a much worse time than I do now. But I'm also equally sure my parents and grandparents had it much easier in term of purchasing power, work/life balance, job stability, being able to afford a home on a single income, being able to afford kids, being able to retire at a somewhat reasonable time, &c. Basically everything after the digital revolution disproportionately benefited a very small percentage of people, while previous advances benefitted the masses (agriculture, train/cars, factory automation, &c.). We got a lot of new shiny bells and whistle to regularly pump up the dopamine but we lost a lot of basics
- swed420 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism > According to skeptics of the "late capitalism" idea, so far there just has not been any real evidence of: > (1) long-term economic stagnation or prolonged negative economic growth in the advanced capitalist countries; > (2) pervasive social decay and persistent cultural degeneration that just keeps getting worse and worse, and > (3) pervasive and persistent rejection of capitalism and business culture by the majority of the population (all three of the skeptic points seem ripe to be re-analyzed) > For many Western Marxist scholars since that time, the historical epoch of late capitalism starts with the outbreak (or the end[9]) of World War II (1939–1945), and includes the post–World War II economic expansion, the world recession of the 1970s and early 1980s, the era of neoliberalism and globalization, the 2008 financial crisis and the aftermath in a multipolar world society. Particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, many economic and political analyses of late capitalism were published. Late Capitalism (1973) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/931838.Late_Capitalism https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/931838.Late_Capitalism